26 CES TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRICAL MACHINES AND SYSTEMS, VOL. 1, NO.

1, MARCH 2017

Vehicle-to-grid power system services with

electric and plug-in vehicles based on flexibility
in unidirectional charging
Philip T. Krein, and Mcdavis A. Fasugba
(Invited)


Abstract—With proper power scheduling and dynamic pricing, purposes of the paper, fully electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid
a unidirectional charger can provide benefits and regulation vehicles are considered together as grid-interactive electric
services to the electricity grid, at a level approaching that of vehicles (EVs).
bidirectional charging. Power scheduling and schedule flexibility
Flexible demand is relatively well understood for grid
of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles are addressed. The use of
electric vehicles (EVs) as flexibility resources and associated operations [3]. Even though V2G unidirectional equipment
unidirectional vehicle-to-grid benefits are investigated. Power can offers extensive benefits, most research has focused on
be scheduled with the EV charger in control of charging or via bidirectional power flow as a means of deriving V2G benefits.
control by a utility or an aggregator. Charging cost functions These include active power regulation (frequency regulation),
suitable for charger- and utility-controlled power scheduling are reactive power support (voltage regulation), and tracking the
presented. Ancillary service levels possible with unidirectional
output of renewable energy sources [4-6]. Electric vehicles
vehicle-to-grid are quantified using sample charging scenarios
from published data. Impacts of various power schedules and equipped with bidirectional flow capability have been
vehicle participation as a flexibility resource on electricity demonstrated to provide ancillary services, including
locational prices are evaluated. These include benefits to both regulation, to the grid in real time. It is often asserted that
owners and load-serving entities. Frequency regulation is bidirectional charging is a necessary capability for the full
considered in the context of unidirectional charging. range of V2G services [7-8]. Kempton [9-10], used an EV to
provide regulation services using real-time dispatch signals
Index Terms—Demand response, electric vehicles, plug-in
hybrids, unidirectional battery charging, utility dynamic price
from the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection
control, vehicle-to-grid. (PJM). Depending on the type of signal received, the battery
either charges or discharges. A team at the Technical
University of Denmark [11] validated a range of ancillary
I. INTRODUCTION services with a production Nissan Leaf charger. Although
bidirectional capability is mentioned, the actual test results
B IDIRECTIONAL charging offers limited benefits to
owners of plug-in electric vehicles compared to simpler
unidirectional chargers. Bidirectional chargers add cost and
modulated unidirectional chargers. In [12], distributed controls
are evaluated for high-performance grid regulation.
metering complexity, and expose batteries to extra wear and Bidirectional power flow is supported by many topologies
tear. Presumably utility grid operators would support them, but and is not a technical barrier (see, for example, [13]), but in the
the extra costs are hard to quantify and the benefits to the grid context of vehicle charging it must overcome the following
are not always clear. In this paper, it is shown that flexible challenges:
scheduling applied to unidirectional chargers offers most of the 1. The extra costs and safety management attributes
same grid benefits without the extra costs. The term associated with bidirectional grid-interactive chargers.
“vehicle-to-grid” (V2G) is used for these interactions. The 2. Battery degradation caused by stochastic bidirectional
presentation is based on an associated conference paper [1], cycling [14].
combined with some operational details presented in [2]. For 3. Metering issues, protection, and bidirectional power flow
management at the distribution level.
4. Hardware upgrades and bidirectional communication
links.
This project was supported in part by the Global Climate Energy Project 5. Energy guarantees: the requirement that the end user ends
through Stanford University, grant #2574 5230-47155A, and in part by the
Grainger Center for Electric Machinery and Electromechanics at the University a time sequence with a contractually obligated energy level in a
of Illinois. battery pack.
Philip T. Krein is with Zhejiang University/University of Illinois at In a unidirectional charging system, charger operation can
Urbana-Champaign Institute, Haining, China, and the Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and respond to one-way grid signal such as real-time prices or
the Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A, (e-mail: krein@illinois.edu). specific economic incentives for flexibility. In the above list,
Mcdavis A. Fasugba is with Mcdavis A. Fasugba, Texas Instruments, Inc., only the energy guarantee remains, and it is simplified because
50 Phillippe Cote St. Manchester, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
KREIN et al. : VEHICLE-TO-GRID POWER SYSTEM SERVICES WITH ELECTRIC AND PLUG-IN VEHICLES BASED ON FLEXIBILITY IN 27
UNIDIRECTIONAL CHARGING

energy will not be extracted during a charging sequence. The a long duration of grid connection -- an EV owner is likely to
extra requirements imposed on bidirectional power flow are specify a certain amount of energy to be delivered by the end of
hard to overstate. Bidirectional chargers become distributed a designated interval to meet driving energy needs. From the
generators subject to interconnection standards [15], with utility’s perspective, no flexibility exists in the energy amount,
requirements for anti-islanding, shutdown outside a narrow but the inherent time flexibility can support ancillary services.
frequency and voltage range, and other attributes. Even though In this paper, firm demand becomes an energy guarantee, and
these challenges are well understood and have been resolved this is emphasized in the power-draw scheduling strategies
for distributed renewable energy [16], such chargers carry a presented. Time flexibility is plausible for unidirectional
cost premium. chargers.
With reasonable penetration of EVs, and active control of Time flexibility has exceptions, but in practice none of these
charging current, a unidirectional charger can meet almost all exceptions benefits from bidirectional power. One example is
desired V2G benefits while avoiding cost, performance, short-term opportunity charging, when a vehicle is connected
standards, and safety concerns associated with bidirectional for short intervals during a driving sequence. Often this can be
chargers. Even though work such as [17] discusses strategies to linked to predictable locations, such as rest areas along major
address battery pack energy demands in the context of highways, or coffee shops offering charging services. In these
bidirectional flow, an energy constraint means that full power cases, the driver seeks the highest possible energy transfer
control offers little advantage over unidirectional flow, as will during a relatively brief stop. However, opportunity charging
be seen in this work. An EV charger with unidirectional power can command premium energy pricing and in many cases
flow can participate in the electricity market as both a buyer of locations are predetermined. This combination is a benefit to
electricity and seller of flexibility or load curtailment. Load utility operators and planners, since the extra cost of meeting
curtailment is a well-established market mechanism that can be this substantial point demand can be linked to local pricing.
extended. Research on unidirectional charging has involved Bidirectional chargers would defeat the need for high energy
developing optimal charging strategies by maximizing exchange in a constrained time interval.
aggregator profits and investigating the impact on distribution Another exception is fast charging (identified as Level 3
networks [5], [18]. There have been a few publications charging in the literature [2]). This represents the “electric
exploring comprehensive benefits from coordinated filling station” application in which a vehicle seeks substantial
unidirectional charging [19-20]. energy in a very short time interval. This situation is fully
To quantify strategies that obtain V2G benefits with constrained with respect to location – such stations would be
unidirectional power, this paper tests a few charging scenarios located and provisioned according to utility best practice for
and penetration levels. One broad version of an optimization intense local loads – and subject to special pricing. In fast
problem is explored. A positive charging-cost coefficient, by charging, bidirectional power flow is counterproductive, so
which an EV owner has incentives to charge at a relatively low Level 3 chargers would not justify the extra costs of high-power
power, is emphasized. Ways to enable vehicle owners to offer multi-quadrant interfaces.
load flexibility are discussed. Charging scenarios are simulated Active roadbed charging is another example in which
based on a dataset of locational marginal prices (LMPs) from bidirectional power is counterproductive, but in this application
the New England Independent System Operator (ISO) [21]. flexibility is more plausible. A driver is likely to seek a certain
EVs used for daily commuting are likely to be connected to the amount of stored energy at a specified location during a long
utility grid during work hours at a workplace, and via a home trip, such as a destination highway exit. Both the power and
connection overnight [5]. time requirements may have some flexibility as the real-time
power demand changes during an active drive cycle. The
combination of unidirectional flow and limited flexibility for
II. EVS AS ENERGY LOADS WITH TIME FLEXIBILITY active roadways has been suggested in the literature [23].
A load with a specified energy need with no flexibility in The overall result is that flexibility for firm demand in EVs
quantity can be termed an “energy load.” For bulk commercial applies primarily to routine long-term connections at work,
loads and energy interchanges, it is common for the when parked overnight, or in urban daytime parking garages.
load-serving entity (LSE), in the form of a utility, to contract These are associated with Level 1 and Level 2 charging
with a customer to support such a load. This is termed firm scenarios [2]. Typically, Level 1 chargers are designed to
demand by regulators [22]. The LSE has an obligation to meet support opportunity charging, and only Level 2 chargers are
firm demand without a shortfall – the alternative is essentially a discussed for bidirectional operation. However, both levels can
blackout or equivalent emergency situation in which total offer time flexibility. It is interesting to consider the impact if a
demand cannot be met. Conventional flexibility at the bulk vehicle-embedded unidirectional Level 1 or Level 2 charger is
level takes the form of a customer contract for interruptible provided with operational intelligence. Such a charger could
load [22]. EV owners often express concern that this type of manage metering and seek out utility pricing and operating
flexibility will lead to energy shortfall, but this should not be an information. It could even negotiate billing. The vehicle itself
issue if EV charging is linked to firm demand contracts instead. could turn any electrical outlet into intelligent flexible
The distinction of EVs compared to conventional load is time infrastructure. This gives rise to the concept of ubiquitous
flexibility. During routine charging overnight or at work – with charging infrastructure [24-25] since charging at any location
28 CES TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRICAL MACHINES AND SYSTEMS, VOL. 1, NO. 1, MARCH 2017

and conventional electrical outlet would offer flexibility and information with a demand charge, such that vehicles have
energy delivery. Given constraints on distribution networks, economic incentive to limit the charging power accordingly.
this capability is not possible in general with bidirectional Adding a demand charge into an EV pricing structure can
charging. encourage time flexibility while still allowing the EV owner to
recharge as desired.
To set up a cost function approach, an optimization
III. CHARGER-CONTROLLED POWER SCHEDULING procedure runs at the time of connection to determine an
One suitable objective for a charger-controlled power-draw expected schedule. The optimization problem, when only
strategy is to minimize user energy costs. In the simplest case, a energy cost is to be addressed, is given by
H
charger-controlled strategy can be based on price, subject to an J min ¦ C ( Pk ) u ( Pk u 't )
energy guarantee. In more sophisticated strategies, the EV k h
driver can alter priorities based on relative importance of a full H

battery pack and low energy cost. There are at least three forms such that ¦ Pk u 't Edes (1)
k h
of charger-controlled power draw scheduling strategies. In the
first, the charger obtains cost from the utility – ideally for the 0 d Pk d Pmax
next few hours – and adjusts to deliver the requested energy based on linear weightings
amount over the allotted time at the lowest total cost. This is C ( Pk ) Ck 0  Dk u Pk (2)
useful only if real-time prices are communicated in advance. If and a retail rate
not, the charger must use historic data or other information to
predict expected prices, and can only minimize expected cost
CC Ck 0  T ( Pk  P0 ), ^T 0 Pk d P0 ` (3)
rather than actual cost. In the second, a more comprehensive Where:
cost function is formulated and used as the basis for charge J is the charging cost function;
optimization. In this case, the energy target can be weighted αk is the weight on hourly power draw at time k with units of
along with cost, thermal management, and other factors, and cost per kilowatt;
the charger can operate to minimize the total function. A third Ck0 is the base hourly price of electricity;
method is price-sensitive energy bidding. In this case, an EV Pk is the scheduled power draw at time k;
owner with extra flexibility can bid for energy in a day-ahead P0 is a utility-enforced charging rate threshold above which
market or a spot market. The amount of energy drawn depends there is a demand charge;
on the price the EV owner is willing to pay. In the day-ahead Δt is the length of charging sub-period in hours;
case, the charger would follow an agreed schedule. Two of Pmax is the maximum charger power permitted (based on the
these strategies are developed in more depth below. outlet, a rating limit, or other predetermined limit);
In these scenarios, flexibility is not being offered as a h is a connection interval index;
resource. The charging process instead is reactive to price, and H is the user set time for charging completion;
price adjustment is the only means by which a utility can Edes is the desired total charger energy draw from the grid;
influence EV loads. Control capability is therefore limited. For θ is the retail rate demand charge factor when Pk>P0.
example, a rate concept was tested in California with a low Notice that (1) is only causal if hourly prices are set in
energy rate offered between midnight and 5:00 am for EV advance. If instead prices are adjusted at the beginning of each
charging [26]. The result was an abrupt load increase at interval, the cost function must start with expected values for
midnight that extended through 5:00 am. This can be a useful C(P) and θ, updated them with actual values as they become
demand shifting strategy but does not address ancillary available. The constraints in (1) guarantee energy Edes subject
services. to the maximum power transfer capability of the charger or
outlet. Depending on electricity prices and load levels, charging
A. Cost function-based charge operation can be done according to the cost function J given by (1). The
Cost function scheduling strategies make a grid-connected cost function weight α in (2) will be set by the charger as a
vehicle completely responsible for its power draw management, means of regulating its power demand at prevailing hourly
with only one-way pricing communication from the utility. prices. The factor θ in (3) penalizes power demand above a
With this strategy, the utility broadcasts pricing information, utility-enforced threshold. It should be noted that setting α=0 in
and the connected vehicle will schedule and implement its (2) implies no penalty for high charging rates, thus permitting
power draw in response. Typically, the cost function settings the charger to draw maximum power at periods when the price
mean that a connected vehicle will charge at its maximum of electricity is lowest.
possible rate when electricity is cheapest. With significant Hourly pricing is emphasized as it is considered an efficient
penetration of EVs, the power draw seen by the grid could pricing strategy [27], and is conventional. This will allow an
become large at times when electricity prices otherwise are EV charging profile to align with prevailing system conditions
lowest. Even with enough grid capacity to handle this resulting in economic benefits for the power system. Fig.1
aggregated load, there could be local feeder overloading issues. illustrates a sample LMP profile, taken from an ISO New
To avoid these issues, one alternative is highly localized price England location (4123) on July 21, 2016 [28]. The average is
signaling. Another alternative is to augment pricing US$0.0282/kWh. A suitable EV pricing structure might use
KREIN et al. : VEHICLE-TO-GRID POWER SYSTEM SERVICES WITH ELECTRIC AND PLUG-IN VEHICLES BASED ON FLEXIBILITY IN 29
UNIDIRECTIONAL CHARGING

this LMP plus an extra markup to cover other costs. To make carries delivery risk and is relatively complicated for an
EV loads more predictable, a utility can compute hourly prices individual vehicle owner. More likely, such a method would be
and demand charges or a day-ahead basis, and can simulate employed by an aggregator, who would need to find other ways
how chargers will respond to such signals.
ρmax

Price ($/kWh)
ρ0
Es

E Emax
Energy (kWh)

Fig. 2. Sample EV energy bid function [1].

Fig. 1. Sample LMP profile, data from [28].
to mitigate delivery risk. For an individual owner, the strategy
B. Price-sensitive energy bidding is likely to become a Āmarket price” bid in which the MCP is
In price-sensitive energy bidding, the EV owner (actually, accepted when set, regardless of the amount. The vehicle itself
the intelligent charger as a surrogate) bids for energy in the will need sufficient intelligence to track bidding and anticipate
day-ahead market and locks in a price based on a preset energy requirements that would support a suitable day-ahead
schedule. This hedges against uncertainties in real-time spot bid. In a real application, the charger will need to learn patterns
markets, although it can be hard for an owner to predict energy and address day-by-day requirements. This is plausible given
needs even on a day-ahead basis to the extent that driving advances in machine learning, but is beyond the scope of this
cycles are stochastic. In the nominal case, an EV owner bids for work.
a price-energy schedule detailing the desired amount of energy
to be purchased at specific price ranges and hours, similar to
bulk industrial buyers. If the bid is higher than the market IV. GAINING ANCILLARY SERVICE BENEFITS
clearing price (MCP), the bid will be accepted and the vehicle For suitable plug-in vehicles, energy usage is on the order of
will charge as planned and be billed as agreed; otherwise the 200 W-h/mile [30]. However, the actual input power based on
bid will be rejected. An EV owner could choose to bid in standardized tests and accounting for input-output battery
subunits to reduce the chance of all bids being completely inefficiencies is typically about 350 W-h/mi for present
rejected, or could bid at an open price and accept whatever production vehicles [31]. Survey data indicate average daily
MCP emerges. The latter provides for an energy guarantee. driving (in the U.S.) of 29.2 miles (47.0 km) [32], typically split
The former methods offer possible lower costs in exchange for into at least two discrete trips, so the average daily usage is just
energy risk. At worst, an EV owner whose bids are rejected over 10 kWh. This is substantial for a household load. For a
could accept the prevailing retail rate, which becomes a dedicated 240 V, 30 A circuit loaded at 80% and with a tapering
maximum price in Fig. 2, or draw based on real-time spot current to protect the batteries, 10 kWh recharge could be
market prices. accomplished in as little as three hours. Even a 120 V, 20 A
The incentive for EV owners is that the day-ahead MCP is circuit loaded at 80% can draw this energy in less than eight
likely to be lower than spot market or retail rates. A successful hours. Since a majority of vehicles are parked most of the time
bidder keeps the day-ahead prices even if spot prices in the [33], there is an opportunity for them to be connected from 8 to
real-time market are higher. An example is PJM’s two-market 15 hours a day. The difference between the time needed for
settlement process [29], which could be applicable to EVs. recharging and the connection time is available for flexibility.
Day-ahead bidding gives an EV owner complete responsibility For the discussion here, the expectations is that the following
for the quantity and price at which energy is bought. The are available:
flexibility attribute, as above, only exists in the sense of utility 1. The vehicle charger is adequately self-metered and can
set points on prices and does not include ancillary services. report its usage regardless of the location of the connection.
Fig. 2 shows a potential bid profile for an owner managing a 2. There is unidirectional real-time data, although
cost-sensitive charging application from [1]. Here, ρmax is the intermittent and with limited bandwidth, from the utility.
EV owner bid limit above which no energy would be delivered 3. There is non-real-time bidirectional communication
(ρmax could be the retail price of electricity, for instance), E is between the vehicle and the utility, for usage, billing
the quantity of energy requested at ρmax, Emax is the maximum information, market information, and transaction requirements.
energy request, and Es is the energy shortfall when MCP = ρmax. 4. The charger is able to adjust its power draw to any positive
If the MCP is less than or equal to ρ0, the maximum energy level consistent with the local connection capacity, provided
requested will be purchased. A price-sensitive bid process
30 CES TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRICAL MACHINES AND SYSTEMS, VOL. 1, NO. 1, MARCH 2017

the battery is not full. Regulation capacity payments can be considered as a revenue
5. The charger can adjust its reactive power demand, at least source to the customer when computing the net energy costs to
over a limited range. a unidirectional charger. The active regulation total revenue is
6. The charger and connection meets power quality, safety, given by
and other standards requirements. n

Even though reactive power control implies two-quadrant r ¦¦ U d d

cap , k P reg , k 't (4)
operation in general, the system impact is distinct compared to d 1 kH
d
a full four-quadrant bidirectional charger. Actually, it has been Where ρcap, k is the regulation market clearing price (RMCP)
k
established that a modest reactive power control range is at hour k and on day d, ρreg, k is the regulation capacity, n is the
possible within power quality limitations even with a number of days considered (set to 365), H is the charging
one-quadrant charger [2]. In [2], current harmonic distortion period and Δ t is the time interval (one hour). For instance, with
below 5% allows phase shifts up to ±8°. Since sin(8°) = 0.139, RMCP of $0.02/kWh, an EV providing a 3 kW hourly active
this means reactive power adjustment at almost 14% of the
regulation capacity for a daily interval of five hours can
charger rating is possible even with a one-quadrant circuit.
generate annual customer-side revenue of almost $110 [33].
A. Active power regulation
B. Reactive power support and voltage regulation
Active power regulation can be performed with a
unidirectional charging EV by modulating its charging rate Two-quadrant chargers, even when constrained to
unidirectional power, can control current flow almost as desired,
about a “preferred operating point” (POP) [5], [34] determined
subject only to a modest local energy buffer resource.
from (1). By varying the charge rate about this point,
regulation-up and regulation-down service, the amount by Typically, the buffer takes the form of a bus capacitor within
the charger topology. A charger of this type can provide
which an EV can increase or decrease its charging rate from the
reactive support even if the batteries are full, provided only that
POP can be performed. Regulation-up and-down dispatch
the vehicles is connected. In the literature, the control issues
signal should average zero over each charging sub-period [3]
have been studied in depth for bidirectional chargers [35], even
since an energy guarantee is to be enforced. A sample charging
profile of an EV performing regulation services is illustrated in though reactive power support can be controlled independent of
power flow.
Fig. 3, from [1],
Given that even a one-quadrant charger can support some
range of reactive power control, there are several ways in which
Max charge rate
EV battery charge rate(kW)

conventional power-factor-corrected unidirectional chargers

can participant in reactive power support. One of the simplest
Minc
is a time-scheduled reactive power process, such as a charger
Battery charge rate
supplying reactive power if connected during daytime hours
POP and absorbing reactive power at night. Almost equivalently,
Mred the LSE could set up a desired power factor schedule on an
hour-by-hour basis. A more sophisticated approach could have
the LSE set up a voltage droop characteristic range for reactive
Time (seconds)
power adjustment, or define an active local voltage regulation
Fig. 3. Sample EV charging profile with power regulation [1]. objective. The challenge in this context is that the nominal
voltage is uncertain at the EV connection location, so the set
Where Minc is the contracted regulation-up capacity, Mred is point for zero reactive support is not clear. In any event,
the regulation-down capacity, and POP is the optimal reactive power can be adjusted rapidly whenever a charger is
scheduled charging rate for a given sub-period. The dashed connected and a battery pack is not full, so a unidirectional
lines must not exceed the maximum charge rate or fall below charger provides a fast-acting reactive power resource given
the POP while the dotted lines cannot exceed the POP or fall suitable communication and control.
below zero. A negative power implies injection of power back
into the grid and it explicitly avoided. C. Market opportunities for energy flexibility
Obviously, a profile as in Fig. 3 is only possible when the In addition to active regulation, unidirectional-charging EVs
battery is not full. This need for energy headroom is a can participate in day-ahead markets the DAM by offering
requirement if a unidirectional charger is to provide active some energy flexibility in the form of load curtailment. For
power regulation services. The LSE can adjust the total energy instance, an EV owner might be willing to accept 75% recharge
schedule to maintain headroom until near the end of the on a particular day, especially if the LSE has requested support
owner-specified interval, or can make use of load diversity or reported an interval of high prices. The EV owner can
among many connected vehicles to obtain headroom. In any request 100% recharge and offer 25% curtailment in the market
case, an intelligent charger should be able to report its at a particular price. If the offer is below the MCP, it is accepted
remaining energy requirement, and the headroom is predictable and the EV becomes a demand-response resource (DRR). If the
to the LSE. offer is rejected, then the full charge is delivered. Since the
Active regulation capacity is a factor in many utility markets. MCP in such a situation is linked to the most expensive
KREIN et al. : VEHICLE-TO-GRID POWER SYSTEM SERVICES WITH ELECTRIC AND PLUG-IN VEHICLES BASED ON FLEXIBILITY IN 31
UNIDIRECTIONAL CHARGING

generating unit used to meet demand in a particular interval, the (2) was explored based on a price profile scaled from the LMP
owner may be able to save money with this strategy. During profile in Fig. 1 and a flat retail rate of $0.12/kWh. Each EV
periods of high demand, the LSE could encourage this type of charging parameter is taken from Nissan Leaf specifications
energy flexibility and create situations in which substantial with a 24 kWh battery [36] that requires 20 kWh of energy each
numbers of EVs offer curtailment. In effect, this approach day. The maximum charging rate is set at 6.6 kW. For the
allows some energy to be shifted by a day or more if EV battery purpose of this simulation, the ac current draw is limited to
packs have adequate capacity. 27.5A. For the pricing structure, the coefficient α in (2) is
The offer for an EV participating as a DRR in a sub-period k adjusted from 0 to 100%, with α = 1 scaled into the cents per
can be represented as a price-quantity pair (η, d). If the EV kilowatt range. Retail rate is charged when the demand is
offering price η for load curtailment d is less than the MCP above 3.3 kW. The vehicle is connected daily from 9:00am to
(K  pk' ) , the offer is accepted. The utility operator uses the 5:00pm and from 9:00pm to 7:00am. The vehicle seeks 10 kWh
during each of these intervals. In this case, no current tapering
supply curve to meet a new load ( Dk  d Dk' ) resulting in a
is considered, but instead energy is purchased in one-hour
price reduction of pk  pk' , as shown in Fig. 4 from [1]. The total
blocks adding to 10 kWh.
savings to the LSE is given by ( pk  pk' ) u d and the DRRs are
Fig. 5 shows the results for the daytime charging profile.
paid d u pk' for their curtailment efforts. Therefore, each The case α = 0 is equivalent to considering a pure hourly energy
kilowatt of demand pays an additional amount given by rate, with no pricing incentive to adjust power flow. As α
pk ' increases, the EV owner has incentive to shift power draw to
ud (5)
'
Dk reduce costs. When α = 0, recharge cost is minimized simply
by drawing power at the 3.3 kW threshold during the cheapest
and the price to the LSE load is given by
hours – in this case, 9am to noon – plus the final 0.1 kWh drawn
§ ' pk u d · $
'
pˆ k ¨ pk  (6) between noon and 1:00pm. As α increases, the owner benefits
¸
D ' ¹ kWh
© k by reducing the power during the cheapest hours and shifting it
in time to other intervals. For instance, a small value of α =
0.25 cents/kW shifts energy from the 10:00am and 11:00am
Old Market clearing
price (MCP)
hours to the noon hour, with the degree of shift chosen to
minimize total cost. When α = 1 cent/kW, there is economic
incentive to spread out the energy draw much more; in this case
Prices($/kWh)

pk the minimum energy draw is taken during the most expensive

hour, 4:00pm to 5:00pm. The LSE has control over the
pk ’
coefficients in (2) and therefore the sensitivities of the charging
New MCP action.

d
Dk’ Dk
Energy(kWh)

Fig. 4. Illustration of price decrease with load curtailment [1].

The impact of EVs offering partial curtailment in the

day-ahead market can be strong when there is significant
penetration, even though it the opportunity would not be
expected to extend beyond a day or two. Thus, to study this
impact, the EVs are treated in the aggregate and the combined
load curtailment is bid into the day-ahead market with each
vehicle sharing the revenue according to the magnitude of its Fig. 5 EV daytime charging profile based on LMPs in Fig. 1.
curtailment. Fig. 6 shows the night profile. As in the daytime case, a
value of α = 0 means the lowest charging cost is accomplished
V. RESULTS by drawing the threshold power value during the cheapest hours.
Scenarios simulated to show V2G benefits obtainable from In this example, power will be drawn at 3.3 kW from 2:00am to
an EV with a unidirectional charger are given below. The 5:00am, and the final 0.1 kWh will be drawn between 5:00am
recent hardware validation in [11] is especially valuable here, and 6:00am. Since the price profile at night is flatter than
since the authors of that work have tested many of the concepts during the day, higher values of α spread recharge energy
directly. across most of the night, and the α = 1 cent/kW case leads to a
A. Benefits of power flexibility to EV owners long duration of charging at about 1.3 kW. The scenarios in
Figs. 5 and Fig. 6 correspond to vehicle use at roughly double
To explore how a power-based pricing strategy can set up
the U.S. average, and therefore corresponding to about a 94 km
economic benefits for an EV owner, the annual charging cost
one-way commute. The LMP profile in Fig. 1 shows that a
for an EV whose charging-cost function is governed by (1) and
customer with average needs (10 kWh total instead of 20 kWh)
32 CES TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRICAL MACHINES AND SYSTEMS, VOL. 1, NO. 1, MARCH 2017

will have strong incentive to charge only at night. In both cents/kW reduces the combined costs by about 7%.
intervals, even an LMP with markup is likely to be cheaper than 8
the retail electricity cost, so owners have incentive not to
exceed the defined threshold power draw. The communication

% Cost Reduction
6
requirements are limited: hourly information on the base price
and price coefficients. 4

0
1 2 3 4
Time period (Quarterly)

Fig. 8. Quarterly cost savings to LSEs with 20% penetration of EVs [1].

C. Benefits to LSEs from EV energy flexibility

If an EV owner can accept an energy shortfall in return for
extra economic benefit, the LSE also benefits. Here, the impact
on system combined LMP is investigated for various levels of
Fig. 6. Nighttime charging profile with power-sensitive pricing. curtailment. This case study considers only daytime charging
from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm for a particular summer day, since
B. Benefits to LSEs from EV power pricing load curtailment is likely to be more valuable under such a
The IEEE 118-bus system [37] is used as a power system test circumstance. Fig. 9, from [1], shows the impact of energy
bed, with scaled EV loads added. It is tested here against an flexibility on system LMP at an EV penetration of 20% with
annual load profile shape shown in Fig. 7, which is scaled from daily curtailment levels of 10%, 20%, and 30%.
58
2009 data available on the New England ISO website [21]. In 10%
20%
the test scenario, there are 118 aggregated sets of EVs with one 56 $57.4/MWh
30%
set connected at each bus. EV penetration is evaluated at levels 54
LMP ($/MWh)

of 5%, 12% and 20% relative to the load energy at each bus.
52
The EVs are connected at 9:00 am and disconnected at 5:00 pm $52.8/MWh
every weekday throughout the year. Similarly, they are 50

connected at 9:00 pm and disconnected at 7:00 am every 48

weeknight throughout the year. Each EV requests 20 kWh daily
46
(10 kWh during each charging interval). The optimal power 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm
Charging period
3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm

flow formulation given in [38] and the power draw scheduling

formulation given in (1) are used to find market clearing prices Fig. 9. Impact on LMPs at a 20% penetration [1].
over the simulated year. From Fig. 9, a 30% load curtailment with a 20% EV
40 penetration yields a 9% decrease in LMP, from $57 to $52
35 between 10: 00 am and 11:00 am, for this particular day. This is
System load (GW)

substantial given that it leverages 6% of the load. Notice that in

30 this case, there is no impact after 2:00pm. In the scenario, the
25 batteries have reached the intended state of charge by about
2:00pm, and further flexibility is not available. This can be
20 remedied by increasing the value of α to spread charging more.
15 D. Benefits to EV owners from energy flexibility
Q Q2 Q3 Q4
Time period
A scenario in which an owner requests energy in two 10 kWh
Fig. 7. System load over a full year, based on data from [21].
blocks each workday, all year (to support about 94 km per day)
The MATPOWER OPF solver [39] is used to solve the implies weekly consumption of 100 kWh and annual
optimal power flow problem to give the market clearing prices consumption of 5.2 MWh. Annual driving is about 24,400 km
and load quantity. A value α = 0.1 cents/kW in (2) is set as a (about 15,000 miles). The relationship between LMPs and
baseline. Fig. 8, from [1], illustrates the reduction in weighted billing is complex, and varies daily. The LMP variation in Fig.
LMPs to meet the total demand for the 118-bus power system 1 suggests that the utility might associate α = 0 with a daytime
model during each quarter of the simulation year for values α = rate of about $0.10/kWh and a nighttime rate of about
0.5 and 2 cents/kW. The LMP reduction represents potential $0.05/kWh. To provide incentive, a value of α = 1 cent/kW
system-level cost savings, as suggested in the figure. The might be set up by the LSE to result in approximately 20%
magnitude highlights the impact of a power-sensitive charging savings below these values. Since half of the recharge is at
schedule with substantial penetration of EVs as α increases night and half during the day, the end result is an annual usage
above the baseline. In the third quarter, for instance, α = 2 of 2.6 MWh at $0.08/kWh and 2.6 MWh at $0.04/kWh. The
KREIN et al. : VEHICLE-TO-GRID POWER SYSTEM SERVICES WITH ELECTRIC AND PLUG-IN VEHICLES BASED ON FLEXIBILITY IN 33
UNIDIRECTIONAL CHARGING

total is US$312. For comparison, a similar vehicle attaining 24 during the cheapest hour there is little headroom below the
miles/gallon in this commuting duty, with a fuel price of specified 1.5 kW charge rate limit.
$2.50/gallon, costs US$1563 annually for fuel. The annual Fig. 11 shows a sample profile for the 20 kWh case from [1].
$312 energy cost provides a baseline for any additional savings In this case, the value of α has been sufficient to spread out the
or benefits. charging process, and substantial regulation capability is
An owner who does not require the full 20 kWh each day, attained through most of the connection time. Notice that the
and either can offer curtailment or can move some portion of allowed variation declines noticeably after 5:00am, as the
charging from day to night, ultimately provides the LSE battery approaches full state of charge. The 50 kWh process
benefits shown in Fig. 9. By sharing these benefits between result is not shown since it is similar, except in magnitude, to
LSE and consumer, an additional savings of about 5% (in Fig. 11, plus somewhat more headroom in the last two hours.
addition to any cost reduction either from reduced energy use or 1.5 Scheduled POP
5 kWh charging profile
from shifting from day to night) can be attained by a customer Charging profile

with some energy flexibility.

Charging power (kW)

1
E. Ancillary service for frequency regulation
Considering a charging profile on a typical day as illustrated
in Fig. 3, the amount of regulation-up and -down capacity for 0.5
different charging profiles can be evaluated. In this case study,
three scheduled charging profiles corresponding to a plug-in
hybrid with about 5 kWh of daily use, a small electric car with 0
9pm 10pm 11pm 12am 1am 2am 3am 4am 5am 6am 7am
Charging period
20 kWh of daily use, and a heavily used electric delivery
vehicle requiring 50 kWh each day. The daily usage does not Fig. 10. Sample regulation profile during 5 kWh night recharge process [1]
necessarily reflect the battery size. The largest batteries in
6
modern EVs do not require recharge energy much more than 10 20 kWh charging profile Scheduled POP
Charging profile
kWh in average commuting duty. The vehicle-energy request 5

parameters and charging levels are summarized in Table I. In

Charging power (kW)

4
this scenario, the vehicles are plugged in at 9:00 pm and are
3
required to complete charging by 7:00 am the following day,
allowing a 10 h charging period. The goal is to quantify the 2

regulation capacity levels possible with these EV models. 1

Dynamic regulation signals from PJM [29] are used to
0
command the charger to increase or decrease its charging rate 9pm 10pm 11pm 12am 1am 2am 3am 4am 5am 6am 7am
Charging period
from the scheduled POP.
TABLE I Fig. 11. Sample regulation profile during 20 kWh night recharge process [1].
SAMPLE VEHICLE PARAMETERS
Battery Maximum Workday
It should be emphasized that the capacity of a unidirectional
Vehicle type charging EV to perform regulation services depends on the
capacity recharge rate energy request
magnitude of its energy request during each charging
Plug-in hybrid,
8 kWh 1.5 kW 5 kWh sub-interval and its charging power limit. Once fully charged,
short commute
there is no power headroom to support frequency regulation
Electric car,
24 kWh 6.6 kW 20 kWh services. Even so, as in Fig. 11, a suitable charge profile ensures
long commute that some capacity is available over the entire charging interval
for regulation services. Notice that each profile avoids negative
Delivery truck 60 kWh 14 kW 50 kWh power values, but even so, a unidirectional charger can be used
to support dynamic regulation. The communications aspects of
frequency support are more complicated, even though in
The charge schedule is obtained using the formulation of (1)
principle the charger can respond to local frequency
with α = 2 cents/kW. This is done to encourage flexibility in the
fluctuations. It is essential to maintain the POP on average such
charging duration, increasing the charge duration and the time
that the intended total energy is delivered as required.
when some battery capacity remains to support frequency
It is also important to recognize that power-based pricing is
regulation. Fig. 10, adapted from [1], shows a sample night
an important strategy. If the coefficients are set such that α = 0,
profile on a day when the LMP is lowest between 1:00am and
an EV owner has incentive to draw power at the limit during the
2:00am (not the same as Fig. 1), for the 5 kWh need of the
cheapest hours, with no headroom for regulation, and with a
plug-in hybrid. The actual profile is derived from sample PJM
charger that shuts down when it has drawn the intended energy.
regulation signals [29]. Obviously, a unidirectional charger can
Fig. 12 shows a 20 kWh scenario with α = 0, in which the
support power-based regulation only when the charger is active.
charger is permitted to operate right up to its 6.6 kW limit.
For this vehicle, the LMPs between 9:00am and 11:00pm are
Only the last hour has any headroom for regulation services, in
too high to justify active charging during that interval. Also,
contrast to Fig. 11 for the same vehicle and energy requirement.
34 CES TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRICAL MACHINES AND SYSTEMS, VOL. 1, NO. 1, MARCH 2017

7
initial optimal schedule power can be supported is linked to the charger topology and
6 actual charging profile implementation details. For purposes of discussion here,
consider an ideal power-factor-corrected one-quadrant charger.
Charging power (kW)

4
Even though in principle such a circuit is optimized for no
phase shift between current and voltage, there is a tradeoff
3
between phase shift and distortion as detailed in [2]. Per the
2
discussion in section IV above, the practical limit is about 8°.
1 Fig. 14 shows the reactive power capacity based on a maximum
0
9pm 10pm 11pm 12am 1am 2am 3am 4am 5am 6am 7am
6° phase shift (to allow some headroom) for the same charge
Charging period profiles as for Figs. 9 and Fig. 10. For the 20 kWh case, the
values are modest, but they do represent full control up to the
Fig. 12. Scenario with 20 kWh charging and α = 0.
limit shown. A two-quadrant charger with unidirectional
F. Revenue from ancillary services power flow would not be subject to these limits, and the process
End-user revenue obtained from regulation services can be could be more comprehensive [40].
quantified by using published regulation capacity prices against
the simulation scenarios in the previous section. For this
purpose, four combinations of power limits and energy requests
were considered. This case study is summarized in Table II. A
simulation was run over an entire year, mapping LMPs and
market regulation prices with charging operation based on α = 2
cents/kW. Eq. (4) was used to compute capacity payments to
EV owners. Historical regulation capacity prices are obtained
from the PJM interconnection [29]. Fig. 13, from [1], quantifies
the annual revenue generated by the EVs for this simulation
scenario. The result is not linear relative to the energy need –
the 1.5 kW charger has less flexibility than the 6.6 kW charger Fig. 14. Limits on reactive power capability based on power-factor corrected
and values of α have less impact at lower power. However, the charger with a 6° phase shift limit.
20 kWh case results in annual benefit of about US$140.
Compare this to the estimated annual cost of US$312, and it VI. DISCUSSION
represents a 45% decrease in outlay. The test cases for TABLE The results in this work suggest substantial V2G benefits to
II do not include any energy risk: every day, the pack is charged LSEs and EV owners with suitable power and energy
fully as requested. scheduling. Even a basic linear power-aware pricing structure
TABLE II supports a range of capabilities, with the local charger able to
SAMPLE VEHICLE PARAMETERS carry out schedules with only basic cost information from the
Ereq[kWh] Pmax[kW] Time in Time out utility. The utility can encourage EV owners to participate in
A 5 1.5 9pm 7am V2G programs in exchange for energy price breaks. Perhaps
this is best accomplished with an aggregator having a
B 10 3.3 9pm 7am
contractual agreement stipulating terms and conditions to each
C 15 6.6 9pm 7am EV owner, but price-aware chargers can perform the basic
D 20 6.6 9pm 7am processes in the absence of an aggregator.
150 A. V2G Benefits: Unidirectional vs. Bidirectional
A bidirectional charger must support an energy guarantee
Annual revenue ($)

(since EVs are energy loads) and the charging rate is limited by
100 the battery. V2G ancillary services from bidirectional flow
should be performed under optimized state of charge conditions,
but in principle can be obtained whenever a vehicle is
50 connected. Unidirectional V2G benefits are only obtainable
from a charging battery, although it was shown that suitable
power-linked pricing structures extend the charge duration. In
0
5 kWh 10 kWh 15 kWh 20 kWh the scenarios above, the 20 kWh unit with 6.6 kW limit
Energy Request (kWh) presumably has maximum regulation capacity of 6.6 kW—the
maximum allowed rate—when connected through a
Fig. 13. Annual revenue from frequency regulation services, simulated
bidirectional charger. A summary from Fig. 11 suggests that a
scenario [1].
unidirectional charger and 20 kWh energy request has a
G. Reactive power services maximum hourly regulation capacity of about 3 kW. This
Reactive power service valuations vary widely among means that unidirectional EV charging penetration about twice
system operators and utilities. The degree to which reactive the level of bidirectional EV penetration would be needed to
KREIN et al. : VEHICLE-TO-GRID POWER SYSTEM SERVICES WITH ELECTRIC AND PLUG-IN VEHICLES BASED ON FLEXIBILITY IN 35
UNIDIRECTIONAL CHARGING

match all of the ancillary service levels. Such an analysis is REFERENCES

pessimistic, however. For a 20 kWh battery, a 6.6 kW [1] M. A. Fasugba, P. T. Krein, “Cost benefits and vehicle-to-grid regulation
regulation limit is a “three-hour” battery rate and relatively services of unidirectional charging of electric vehicles,” in Proc. IEEE
aggressive in terms of battery wear and tear. A limit on the Energy Conversion Congress, 2011, pp. 827-834.
order of six hours is much less stressful on typical batteries. [2] M. A. Fasugba, P. T. Krein, “Gaining vehicle-to-grid benefits with
unidirectional electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle chargers,” in Proc.
To account for the cost of battery degradation, a lithium-ion IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference., 2011.
battery is expected to achieve up to one million cycles at 3% [3] A. Brooks, E. Lu, D. Reicher, C. Spirakis, and B. Weihl, “Demand
depth of discharge (DOD) [33]. According to [33], 3% DOD dispatch,” IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 20 –29,
would be typical for regulation services. With a conservative May-June 2010.
cost estimate of $200/kWh, battery degradation can be [4] S. B. Peterson, J. F. Whitacre, and J. Apt, “The economics of using
estimated using cost equations in [33] to be $0.007/kWh. This plug-in hybrid electric vehicle battery packs for grid storage,” J. Power
Sources, vol. 195, no. 8, pp. 2377–2384, 2010.
results in about $165/year in degradation cost, offset by the
[5] E. Sortomme and M. El-Sharkawi, “Optimal charging strategies for
income in Fig. 13. Even if the income can double with heavier unidirectional vehicle-to-grid,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 1, pp.
use of a bidirectional charger, the battery degradation cost is 131–138, 2011.
more than the extra income. The “benefits” of a birectional [6] S. Han, S. Han, and K. Sezaki, “Development of an optimal
charger become even more negative when extra metering and vehicle-to-grid aggregator for frequency regulation,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 65–72, 2010.
installation issues are considered. It should also be emphasized
[7] G. Buja, M. Bertoluzzo, and Christian Fontana, “Reactive power
that bidirectional power flow on its own adds little economic compensation capabilities of V2G-enabled electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans.
benefits to the LSEs. During the charging phase, a bidirectional Power Electronics, to appear 2017.
charger is subject to the same power draw scheduling schemes [8] M.I. Milanés-Montero, M.A. Guerrero Martínez, Eva González-Romera,
discussed previously with the same cost savings as that E. Romero-Cadaval, F. Barrero-González, “Active and Reactive Power
achieved with a unidirectional charger. Any discharge must be Control Strategies for Electric Vehicles in Smart Grids,” in Proc. 2016
10th International Conference on Compatibility, Power Electronics and
made up with additional load power. In summary, bidirectional Power Engineering (CPE-POWERENG), 2016, pp. 114–119.
power flow is not a necessary requirement to support V2G [9] W. Kempton, J. Tomic, “Using fleets of electric-drive vehicles for grid
services, and unidirectional chargers are generally sufficient. support,” J. Power Sources, vol. 168, no. 2, pp. 459–468, 2007.
[10] W. Kempton, S. Letendre, “Electric vehicles as a new power source for
B. Additional validation electric utilities,” Transportation Research, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 157–175,
The discussion here emphasizes simulation studies, but 1997.
developed from actual load and LMP data from independent [11] K. Knezovic, S. Martinenas, P. B. Andersen, A. Zecchino, M. Marinelli,
“Enhancing the Role of Electric Vehicles in the Power Grid: Field
system operators. The work in [11] provides ancillary service Validation of Multiple Ancillary Services,” IEEE Trans. Transportation
validation. The public database in [41], used extensively in [42] Electrification, to appear 2017.
and [43], offers an opportunity to extend this work. There is [12] T. N. Pham, H. Trinh, L. V. Hien, “Load Frequency Control of Power
additional discussion in [44]. Systems With Electric Vehicles and Diverse Transmission Links Using
Distributed Functional Observers,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 1,
pp. 238-252, 2016.
[13] N. Tashakor, E. Farjah, T. Ghanbari, “A Bidirectional Battery Charger
VII. CONCLUSION With Modular Integrated Charge Equalization Circuit,” IEEE Trans.
In this paper, power-based pricing and scheduling strategies, Power Electronics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 2133-2145, 2017.
[14] S. B. Peterson, J. Apt, and J. F. Whitacre, “Lithium-ion battery cell
and potential V2G benefits that can be obtained from degradation resulting from realistic vehicle and vehicle-to-grid
unidirectional EV chargers were explored. The use of an utilzation,” J. Power Sources, vol. 195, pp. 2385–2392, 2010.
efficient price schedule to incentivize owners to respond [15] “IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric
according to prevailing power system conditions in the Power Systems,” IEEE Std 1547, July 2003.
simulation model shows significant cost savings that would [16] A. Brooks, S. H. Thesen, “PG&E and Tesla Motors: Vehicle to grid
demonstration and evaluation program,” in Proc. 23rd Electric Vehicle
encourage V2G participation. From the LSE’s perspective, an Symp., 2007.
appropriate scheduling strategy results in significant cost [17] H. Liu, Y. Yang, J. Qi, J. Li, H. Wei, P. Li, “Frequency droop control
savings to serve the system load. Key aspects are the with scheduled charging of electric vehicles,” IET Generation,
development of a scheduling strategy and quantification of the Transmission & Distribution, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 649-656, 2017.
[18] S. Acha, T. C. Green, and N. Shah, “Effects of optimized plug-in hybrid
ancillary service levels available to vehicles with varying vehicle charging strategies on electric distribution network losses,” in
battery capacity. The results showed significant regulation Proc. IEEE Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition,
service capacity over long periods when charging is spread over 2010.
time. This was enforced using the charging cost function and [19] N. Z. Xu, H. Huang, C.Y. Chung, “A Comprehensive Framework for
Unidirectional Vehicle-to-Grid Regulation Services,” in Proc. 2014 IEEE
pricing strategy. An EV requesting to charge at its maximum PES Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference, 2014.
for a short time has a significantly less ancillary service [20] N. Rahbari-Asr, M.-Y. Chow, J. Chen, R. Deng, “Distributed Real-Time
capability than one willing to offer some flexibility in the Pricing Control for Large-Scale Unidirectional V2G with Multiple
charging schedule. The cost savings associated with offering Energy Suppliers,” IEEE Trans. Industrial Informatics, vol. 12, no. 5, pp.
1953-1962, 2016.
charging flexibility would encourage EV owners to do so.
[21] The New England ISO 2010 [Online]. Available:
http://www.iso-ne.com/marketshst_rpts/hstRpts.do?category=Hourly
[22] NERC Glossary. [Online] Available: http://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf.
36 CES TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRICAL MACHINES AND SYSTEMS, VOL. 1, NO. 1, MARCH 2017

[23] G. A. Covic, J. T. Boys, “Modern Trends in Inductive Power Transfer for [43] E. Yao, V.W.S. Wong, R. Schober, “Optimization of aggregate capacity
Transportation Applications,” IEEE J. Emerging Selected Topics Power of PEVs for frequency regulation service in a day-ahead market,” IEEE
Electronics, vol. 1, no. 1, , pp. 28-41, 2013. Trans. Smart Grid, to appear, 2017.
[24] P. T. Krein, “Fundamental Challenges in Transportation Electrification, [44] M. Fasugba, “Power draw scheduling of electric and plug-in hybrid
from Aircraft to Watercraft and Everything in Between,” presented at the electric vehicles with unidirectioanl vehiucle-to-grid benefits,” M.S.
IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference, 2015. thesis. Technical Report CEME-TR-2011-4, and UILU-ENG-2011-2508,
[25] F. Pawlitschek, K. Hechtfischer, “Mobile Metering, Ubiquitous Smart University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Engineering Documents
Charging of Electric Vehicles Made Affordable,” 9/1/2015, [Online] Center, July 2011.
Available:
http://aqtr.com/association/actualites/mobile-metering-ubiquitous-smart-
charging-electric-vehicles-made-affordable
Philip T. Krein received the B.S. degree
[26] N. DeForest, J. Funk, A. Lorimer, B. Ur, I. Sidhu, P. Kaminsky, B.
in electrical engineering and the A.B.
Tenderi, “Impact of Widespread Electric Vehicle Adoption on the degree in economics and business from
Electrical Utility Business – Threats and Opportunities,” University of Lafayette College, Easton, PA, USA, and
California Berkeley, Center for Entrepreneurship & Technology (CET), the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
Technical Brief Number: 2009.5.v.1.1. Revision Date: August 31, 2009,
p. 11. engineering from the University of Illinois
[27] S. Braithwait, D. Hansen, and M. O’Sheasy, “Retail electricity pricing at Urbana-Champaign, USA. He was an
and rate design in evolving markets,” Edison Electric Institute, Tech. Rep., engineer with Tektronix, Beaverton, OR,
2007. USA, and then returned to the University
[28] ISO New England data, hourly LMPs by location, [Online], Available: of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He was a Senior Fulbright
http://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/web/reports/pricing/-/tree/lmp-by-nod Scholar with the University of Surrey, Guildford, UK, from
e.
1997 to 1998. From 2003 to 2014 he was a Founder and
[29] PJM Interconnection 2010 [Online], Available: http://www.pjm.com/
-markets-and-operations/¬ancillary-services/-mkt-based-regulation.aspx Director of SolarBridge Technologies, Inc., Austin, TX, USA,
[30] Philip T. Krein, Timothy G. Roethemeyer, Robert A. White, Brandon R. a developer of long-life integrated inverters for solar energy,
Masterson, “Packaging and Performance of an IGBT-Based Hybrid and now part of Sunpower. He holds the Grainger Endowed
Electric Vehicle,” in Proc. 1994 IEEE Workshop on Power Electronics in Chair Emeritus in Electric Machinery and Electromechanics
Transportation, pp. 47-52.
and is Director of the Grainger Center for Electric Machinery
[31] “GM tweaks battery materials, pack size, SOC window to increase 2013
Chevrolet Volt EV range to 38 miles” June 7, 2012, Green Car Congress,
and Electromechanics at the University of Illinois at
[Oline], Available: Urbana-Champaign. He is also Executive Dean of the Zhejiang
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/06/2013volt-20120607.html. Universityᵕniversity of Illinois Institute for engineering in
[32] “New Study Reveals When, Where and How Much Motorists Drive,” Haining, China. He holds 38 U.S. patents with additional
April 16, 2015, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and the Urban
Institute, [Oline], Available:
patents pending. His current research interests include all
http://newsroom.aaa.com/2015/04/new-study-reveals-much-motorists-dr aspects of power electronics, machines, drives, electric
ive/. transportation, and electrical energy, with an emphasis on
[33] W. Kempton and J. Tomic, “Vehicle-to-grid power fundamentals: nonlinear control approaches.
Calculating capacity and net revenue,” J. Power Sources, vol. 144, no. 1, Dr. Krein is a Registered Professional Engineer in Illinois
pp. 268–279, 2005.
and Oregon. In 2001, he helped initiate the International Future
[34] R. A. Alonso, “Impact assessment of plug-in electric vehicles in power
system regulation and control,” Master’s thesis, University of Illinois at Energy Challenge, a major student competition involving fuel
Urbana-Champaign, 2007. cell power conversion and energy efficiency. In 2003, he
[35] M. Kesler, M. C. Kisacikoglu, L. M. Tolbert, “Vehicle-to-Grid Reactive received the IEEE William E. Newell Award in Power
Power Operation Using Plug-In Electric Vehicle Bidirectional Offboard Electronics. He is a past President of the IEEE Power
Charger,” IEEE Trans. Indus. Electronics, vol.61, no. 12, pp. 6778- 6784,
2014.
Electronics Society, and served as a member of the IEEE Board
[36] Nissan zero emission website 2011 [Online]. Available:
of Directors. He is Editor-at-Large of the IEEE Transactions on
http://¬www.nissanusa.com/¬leaf-electric-car/¬index#/¬leaf-electric-car Power Electronics and an Associate Editor of the IEEE Journal
/¬specs-features/¬index of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. In
[37] Data for the IEEE 118 bus test system ia, [Online], Available: 2015-2016, he was Chair of the IEEE Transportation
http://www2.ee.washington.edu/research/pstca/pf118/pg_tca118bus.htm. Electrification Community. He was elected to the U.S.
[38] A. S. Kowli, “Assessment of variable effects of systems with demand National Academy of Engineering in 2016.
response resources,” Master’s thesis, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, 2009.
[39] R. D. Zimmerman and C. E. Murillo-Sanchez, MATPOWER 4.0, Mar. McDavis Fasugba (MS’2011) was born in
2011. Nigeria, in 1984. He received the BSc.
[40] W. Choi, W. Lee, B. “Sarlioglu, “Reactive power control of degree in electrical engineering from the
grid-connected inverter in vehicle-to-grid application for voltage University of Miami, Coral gables Florida,
regulation,” in Proc. 2016 IEEE Transportation Electrification in 2009, and the MSc. degree in electrical
Conference. (ITEC).
engineering from the University of Illinois
[41] “evCloud” public dataset, British Columbia, Canada, [Online], Available:
http:/www.fleetcarma.com/evCloud/About. at Urbana-Champaign, in 2011.
[42] E. Yao, V.W.S. Wong, R. Schober, “Robust Frequency Regulation In 2011, he joined Texas Instruments Inc.
Capacity Scheduling Algorithm for Electric Vehicles”, IEEE Trans. where he has been responsible for circuit
Smart Grid, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 984-987, 2016. modeling and verification of integrated power converters.